MASTER 

NEGATIVE 
NO.  92-80497-10 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  .     ^ 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  bv  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  --  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  --  concerns  the  making_ of  photocopies  or  omer 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accepTa  copy  order  if,  in  its  Vdgement  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copynght  law. 


AUTHOR: 


KNAPP,  CHARLES 


TITLE: 


REFERENCES  TO  PAIN 
TING  IN  PLAUTUS 


PLACE: 


[NEW  YORK] 


DA  TE : 


[1917?] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  it 


M 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


Restrictions  3n  Use: 


MS:    EL 

CON 
ILC 
EML 


AD:02-il-92 
UD:02-12-92 


7V7 
'??7'? 


11:? 
GEN: 


B3t 


iiKS/Ck'OD  Hooks       f  UL/BIB    NYLU92-BV/^4           Acquisitions     NYCG-PT 

FIN  ID  NYca92-B9/44  -  Record  1  of  1  -  Record  updated  today 

I- 

II) :  \'\'iiAV/y    HV  /i^)  R  I  Yl' :  a           3  I  :  p         I- RN : 

CC:966J^  Bi   Irani                UCE:?         C3C:?         MOD:            SNR: 

CP  :  II yu  L  :  en q     -         [  N  F : '?        (iPC  :  ?        BIO:?        i- 1 C  :  V 

P(::s  PD:19J.//                            RtP:?         CPl:?         ESJ:? 

iihl):  OR:            POL:              DM:              RR:                      COL: 

040  NNCt-cNNC 

iOO  i  Knapp,  Charles. 

245  io  References  to  painting  in  Plautus  and  1 erencerh[inicrof orm J . ^cBy  Charle 

s  K n a f) r- . 

260  lilew  Yor  K,{-hiJoiuinbia  Univers  i  ty  ,  |cl9i /?  J 

300  p.  143-15/. 

LDQ  OR  10 

QD  02-11-92 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE:         ^^^^Iho^l 
IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  Cb/^  IB 
DATE     FiLMED:„/V/vJ55 


REDUCTION     RATIO:       // ^ 


IIB 


INITIALS 


^(y 


FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


\ 


r 

V 


Association  for  information  and  image  iManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliinliiiiln 


u 


Inches 


4 

\ 


5 

I 


1 1  I 


n 


1 


8 


10 


[|j||||j||||||m|j||II[I|II|I|I 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1^ 

■  56 
|63 

la 
|ao 


2.8 

12. 
36 

40 


1.4 


t$mmf^ 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


n        12       13       14       15    mm 

Mljmimjlm^^ 


MflNUFfiCTURED    TO   PIIM   STONDfiRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMAGE,     INC. 


I 


Reprinted  for  private  circulation  from 
Classical  Philology,  Vol.  XII,  No.  2,  April  1917 


REFERENCES  TO  PAINTING  IN  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE 

By  Charles  Knapp 
As  the  starting-point  of  this  paper  I  have  selected  the  famous 
cave  canem  passage  in  Mo.  832-52,  which  I  have  abeady  twice  dis- 
cussed in  print,'  though  less  fully  than  in  the  present  article. 

Theopropides  has  but  lately  returned  from  a  long  trading-voyage 
(431)      He  finds  the  front  door  of  his  house  closed  and  locked  in  the 
daytime  (444  f   explained  by  404,  425-26).    Before  he  has  time  to 
wonder  much  at  this,  Tranio,  his  slave,  appears  (446)  and  tells 
Theopropides  that,  since  ghosts  had  begun  to  walk  in  their  one-time 
home,  Philolaches,  Theopropides'  son,  had  been  obliged  to  move 
and  to  buy  a  house  elsewhere  (454  ff.,  especially  479  ff.).     Pressed 
to  tell  whose  house  had  been  bought,  Tranio,  using  the  first  lie  that 
comes  to  mind,  declares  that  Philolaches  has  bought  the  house  of 
Simo,  neighbor  of  Theopropides  (659  ff.).     Theopropides  then  wishes 
to  inspect  the  new  house  in  detail,  without  and  within  (674  ff.). 
He  sends  Tranio  to  ask  permission  of  Simo  to  make  such  inspection 
(683  ff )      Simo  presently  appears  (690),  and  after  a  long  soliloquy 
(690-710),  and  a  talk  with  Tranio  (711-74),  meets  Theopropides 
(805)  and  bids  him  go  where  he  will  in  his  (Simo's)  house  (809). 

After  Theopropides  has  carefully  examined  the  vesUbulum,  the 
amhidacrum,  and  the  pastes  (817-31),  the  following  dialogue  ensues 

(832  ff.) :' 

Tr   Videnptctemubiludificat  una  comix  volturios  duos? 

Th    Non  edepol  video.     Tr.  At  ego  video,  nam  inter  voltunos  duos 

comix  astat:  ea  volturios  duo  vicissim  vellicat. 

Quaeso  hue  ad  me  specta  cornicem  ut  conspicere  possies. 

lam  vides  ?     Th.  Profecto  nuUam  equidem  ilhc  cormcem  intuor. 

■  See  the  Classical  Review.  XX,  395  ff.;    the  Latin  Leaflet.  No.  136,  January  8. 

"°^^  In  a  Princeton  University  dissertation,  entitled  The  House-Door  on  the  Ancient 
Sta^e  LltL":  1914),  pp.  12-14,  Mr.  W.  W.  Mooney  holds  that  the  houe.door  on 
th7Roman  stage  was  kept  closed  during  the  day  (as  m  actual  lite),  ^nd  that  in  Mo. 
444;  Z  lOls!  and  St^ch.  308,  surprise  is  expressed,  "not  because  the  door  .s  shut 
(inthcdaytimel,  but  because  it  is  locked"  (p.  13).  j  „„„;,»H7ation 

.  Unless  otherwise  stated,  I  give  Lindsay's  text;  the  punctuation  and  capitalization 

are  my  own.  ^ 

[Classical  Philology  XII,  April,  1917J       143 


144  Charles  Knapp 

Tr.  At  tu  isto  ad  vos  optuere,  quoniam  cornicem  nequis 

conspicari,  si  volturios  forte  possis  contui. 
Th.  Omnino,  ut  te  apsolvam,  nullam  pidam  conspicio  hie  avem. 

Here,  plainly,  we  have  reference  to  painting  in  somewhat  elabo- 
rate form,  a  representation  of  a  raven  assailing  two  vultures. 
Where  are  we  to  locate  this  painting  ?  If  anywhere  at  all,  on  the 
outside  of  the  house.  In  817-28  Theopropides  and  Tranio  were 
examining  the  vestibulum,  the  ambulacrum,  and  the  pastes;  in  829-31 
they  were  looking  at  coagmenta  in  foribus.  They  do  not  enter  the 
house  till  858.     They  then  remain  within  till  904. 

We  need  to  remember,  however,  that  the  Mostellaria  is  in  many 
respects  a  veritable  extravaganza,  a  lively  and  energetic,  but,  at  times, 
wholly  improbable,  farce,  in  places  difficult,  I  should  say,  of  represen- 
tation in  any  age,  unless  no  regard  is  paid  to  verisimilitude  of  illu- 
sion.^ 

The  spirit  of  riotous  burlesque  is  especially  marked  in  the  whole 
passage  under  review  and  in  the  description  of  the  house  in  general. 
Cf .  particularly  907-14,  where  Theopropides  and  Tranio,  having  come 
forth  from  Simo's  house,  talk  enthusiastically  of  what  they  have  seen 

1  For  example,  in  682  Tranio  is  sent  to  interview  Simo,  to  get  permission  for  Theo- 
propides to  inspect  Simo's  house.     For  100  verses  Theopropides  stands  about  doing 
nothing-   Tranio  indeed  seems  to  be  out  of  his  sight,  for  at  721a  he  calls  out  to  Tranio 
to  return,  and  at  784,  when  Tranio  at  last  does  return  and  address  his  master,  the 
latter  exclaims.  "Hem.  quis  hie  nominat  me ? "     Again,  in  785,  he  asks      L nde  is ? 
Tranio's  question  to  Simo  in  774.  "Eon.  voco  hue  hominem."   though  not  in  itself 
significant,  seems  in  this  context  to  indicate  that  Simo  and  Tranio  had  not  been  in 
sight  of  Theopropides.     Professor  Fay  seems  to  think  that  at  687  Tranio  stepped  into 
the  alley  (angiportum)  to  call  on  Simo,  by  a  side  door  (see  his  note  on  785).     But  was 
it  usual  to  call  on  gentlemen  via  the  side  door  ?     Yet  how  else  could  Tranio  have  been 
out  of  his  master's  sight  ?     In  the  Trinummus,  to  be  sure,  Lesbonicus  adulescens  lives 
in  a  posticulum,  which  recepit,  quom  aedis  vendidit  (Trin.  194)  in  his  father  s  absence. 
To  this  he  gained  access,  no  doubt,  through  an  angiportum  (though  no  mention  is  made 
of  an  angiportum  in  the  play).     But  the  situation  in  the  Trinummus  is  unique  in 
Roman  comedy.     Professor  Sonnenschein  (2d  ed.,  1907)  makes  Tranio  step  into  the 

angiportum  at  687  and  Simo  "enter from  his  house  at  the  back  of  the  stage 

(see  his  notes  on  687,  689),  but  he  says  nothing  at  all  of  the  place  of  the  actual  confer- 
ence between  the  two,  or  of  the  difficulties  raised  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  note 
Professor  Morris,  in  his  edition  (1886),  p.  124,  made  the  meeting  take  place  m  front 
of  Simo's  house.  If  the  two  really  met  before  Simo's  front  door,  to  answer  the  diffi- 
culties raised  above  we  shall  have  to  fall  back  on  the  great  breadth  of  the  Roman  stage, 
though  this  ever-ready  crutch  seems  none  too  good  a  support  here.  Such  questions 
as  these,  however.  Plautus  probably  did  not  ask  himself  nor  did  his  audience  ask  them 
of  him. 


References  to  Painting  in  Plautus  and  Terence      145 

within.     Note  that  the  most  extravagant  idea  of  the  whole  passage 
(909)1  is  suggested  by  Theopropides  senex  himself. 

In  view  of  all  this  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  because  decora- 
tion of  the  exterior  walls  of  private  houses  representing  definite  and 
elaborate  scenes  appears  not  to  have  been  common  at  any  time, 
either  at  Athens  or  at  Pompeii,  or,  we  may  infer,  at  Rome  itself, 
particularly  at  the  time  of  the  production  of  the  Mostellaria.^ 

1  Tr.  Quoiusmodi  gynaeceum  ?  quid  porticum  ?  Th.  Insanum  bonam.  Non 
equidcm  uUam  in  publico  esse  maiorem  hac  existumo. 

2  Mr.  Stevens,  in  Fowler-Wheeler,  Greek  Archaeology,  p.  189,  is,  by  his  silence, 
against  such  decoration  of  Greek  private  houses.     Nor  do  I  find  evidence  of  it  in  the 
following  discussions  of  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  house:   Smith,  Dictionary  of  Antiq- 
uities', I,  659  B,  660  A,  664  B.  666-67;    II,  345  B-347  A;    Mau-Kelsey.  Pompeii: 
Its  Life  and  Art,  p.  456;    Baumeister,  I,  627  B;    Gercke-Norden,  Einleitung  xn  die 
Altcrtumswissenschaft^  (1913),  II,  27;    the  article  "Romisches  Haus,"  by  Fiechter.  in 
Pauly-Wissowa,  Zweite  Reihe,  Erste  Halbband  (1914);    the  article  "Haus,"  in  Fr. 
Lijbker,  Rcallexikon  des  klassischen  Altertums^  (1914).     In  Mau-Kelsey,  p.  456,  the 
following  statement  appears:    "Previous  to  the  time  of  Augustus  the  stucco  coating 
of  outer  walls  ordinarily  remained  uncolored.     Afterwards  color  was  employed,  but 
only  to  a  limited  extent,  as  in  the  addition  of  a  dark  base  to  a  wall  the  rest  of  which 
remained  white."     Bertha  Carr  Rider,  The  Greek  House:    Its  History  and  Development 
from  the  Neolithic  Period  to  the  Hellenistic  Age  (1916),  is  not  concerned  at  all  with  the 
decoration  of  houses.     H.  R.  Hall,  Aegean  Archaeology  (1915),  pp.  178-98,  throws  no 

light  on  our  problem. 

External  decoration  of  public  buildings  was  of  course  not  unknown;  cf.  e.g.,  the 
decorations  in  the  Stoa,  by  Polygnotus.  Athenian  spectators,  familiar  with  these 
decorations,  would  have  no  difficulty  in  catching  the  idea  which  the  author  in  Plautus 
original  wished  them  to  grasp  at  the  point  corresponding  to  Mo.  832  ff.  The  phrase 
"ullam  in  publico  ....  maiorem  (porticum)"  in  Mo.  909,  in  view  of  the  whole 
context  since  832,  irievitably  makes  one  think  of  paintings  like  those  in  the  Stoa  at 
Athens;  it  should  be  carefully  noted,  however,  that  the  porticus  in  Plautus'  descrip- 
tion (908)  is  within  doors,  and  that  nothing  is  said  of  paintings  in  that  porticus. 

Mr    J    J.  Robinson,  of  the  Hotchkiss  School,  has  been  kind  enough  to  call  my 

attention  to  a  passage  in  the  Digest,  Pompon.  D.  I.  15.  1.     Pomponius,  speaking  of 

servitutes,  i.e.,  restricting  rights  or  burdens  which  lie  against  property,  says:      ber- 

vitutium  non  ea  natura  est  ut  aliquid  faciat  quis,  veluti  viridia  tollat  aut  amoeniorem 

prospectum  praestet,  aut  in  hoc  ut  in  suo  pingat,  sed  ut  aliquid  patiatur  aut  non  faciat 

"the  essence  of  servitutes  does  not  lie  in  the  necessity  of  doing  something,  for  example 

removing  bushes  or  furnishing  a  more  pleasing  view,  or  painting  ["displaying  pictures. 

says  Mr.  Robinson]  on  his  own  property  for  the  purpose  [  =  making   a  pleasantei 

view  ?],  but  rather  in  putting  up  with  something  or  in  refraining  from  doing  something. 

Mr.  Robinson's  impression  was  that  this  passage  bears  testimony  to  the  decoration  ol 

external  walls.     In  his  Selections  from  the  Public  and  Private  Law  of  the  Romans  (1905), 

p.  189  Mr.  Robinson,  in  a  note  on  the  passage  just  cited,  writes:   "/n  suo  pingat  refers 

to  the  practice  of  decorating  walls  or  other  surfaces  with  paintings  and  frescoes  for 

the  purpose  of  beautifying  the  landscape.     This  practice  is  referred  to  by  Juv.  Sat  8. 

157      Cf    also  Dig.  43.  17.  3,  9.     Such  'coverings'   of  paint  and  fresco  were  called 

tectoria."     Now  Juvenal  8.  157  has  nothing  at  aU  to  do  wi^h  paintings  on  the  outside 


146 


Charles  Knapp 


It  might  indeed  be  argued  that  the  very  use  of  this  kind  of  joke 
by  Tranio  proves  that  paintings  on  the  outside  of  buildings  (houses) 
were  not  unknown  at  Rome  in  Plautus'  time.  But  the  argument  is 
not  convincing.  The  passages  given  below  as  referring  to  paintings 
(portraits)  and  frescoes  (cf.  Men.  141  ff.;  Merc,  313  ff.;  Eun.  584-90) 
show  clearly  that  the  idea  of  frescoes  or  paintings  within  houses  was 
to  the  Roman  audience  not  an  impossible  or  a  difficult  conception, 
whether  the  actual  thing  was  familiar  in  their  experience  or  not. 
Given  this  point,  we  may  say  at  once  that  it  would  be  no  great  strain 
on  the  audience  to  grasp  a  joke  turning  on  a  reference  to  similar 
(imaginary)  paintings  outside  a  house.  The  joke  is  surely  better 
if  such  paintings  did  not  exist  at  all  in  actual  experience.^ 

of  buildings.      There  Juvenal,  writing  of   Lateranus,  the   horse-loving  consul,  says 

(155-57): 

Interea,  dum  lanatas  robumque  luvencum 
more  Numae  caedit,  lovis  ante  altaria  iurat  ^ 
solam  Eponam  et  facies  olida  ad  praesepia  pictas. 

Here  we  are  not  dealing  with  a  house  at  all.     Several  editors  of  Juvenal  did  not  think 
it  worth  while  to  comment  on  the  facies;  others  rightly  make  them  pictures  within  the 
stables  (so  Lewis,  Duff,  Mayor,  Hardy,  Simcox,  Pearson-Strong).     Lewis  reminds  us 
that  in  Apuleius  Met.  3.  27  (Helm,  1907),  when  Lucius,  transformed  into  an  ass,  first 
goes  into  the  stable,  he  finds  "pilae  mediae  quae  stabuli  trabes  sustinebat  in  ipso  fere 
medituUo  Eponae  deae  simulacrum  residens  aediculae."     In  reality,  in  the  passage 
cited  above  from  the  Digest  there  is  nothing  to  show  whether  the  paintings  referred 
to  were  to  be  on  an  exterior  wall  or  on  an  interior  wall  of  a  house.      In  any  case,  the 
testimony  of  the  Diyest  would  be  to  a  time  much  later  than  that  of  Plautus  and  Terence. 
On  a  priori  grounds,  however,  we  may  argue  that  to  a  Roman  of  Plautus'  day 
paintings  on  the  outside  of  a  house  were  not  unthinkable.     We  may  recall,  as  possibly 
helpful  here,  the  graffiti  of  various  sorts,  the  caricatures,  election  notices,  etc.,  that 
appear  so  often  on  walls  at  Pompeii  (see  Mau-Kelsey,  Pompeii,  p.  486).     In  Mau- 
Kelsey,  p.  234,  we  have  reference  to  a  painting  of  "the  Lares,  with  their  offerings," 
on  an  exterior  street  wall  above  a  shrine.     It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  all  these 
things  combined  fall  far  short  of  a  definite  composition  on  the  exterior  of  a  private 
house  such  as  our  Mostellaria  passage  seems  to  imply.     We  come  closer  to  that  in  the 
account  given  in  the  American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  Second  Series,  XVII  (1913),  115, 
of  four  blocks  of  stone  found  at  Pompeii,  which  formed  the  architrave  of  a  passageway. 
The  blocks  were  ornamented  with  paintings  of  Sol,  Jupiter,  Mercury,  and  Luna.     See 
Notizie  degli  Scavi,  IX  (1912),  102-20.     At  the  sides  of  the  passageway  were  pilasters, 
decorated  with  paintings:   one  represents  a  sacred  procession,  the  other  a  large  female 
figure   identified   as   Venus   Pompeiana.     See  further  Notizie,   IX,   174-92,   216-24, 
246-59,   281-89.     In  the  American  Journal  of  Archaeology,    Second    Series,    XVII 
(1913),'  114-15,  is  an  account  of  a  shrine  at  Pompeii,  with  a  painted  frieze  repre- 
senting the  Dei  Consentes  or  Penates  Publici  of  Pompeii;  the  frieze  is  figured  on 
p.  115.     In  1914,  again,  on  external  pilasters  at  Pompeii  were  found  fine  paintings,  one 
of  which  represents  Aeneas  with  Ascanius  and  Anchises,  the  other  a  Roman  warrior. 
See  American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  XVIII  (1914),  398. 

1  One  more  argument  is  possible,  that,  had  paintings  on  exteriors  been  unknown, 
Theopropides  would  have  exhibited  far  more  mystification  and  surprise  at  833  than 


References  to  Painting  in  Plautus  and  Terence      147 

But  let  us  return  to  the  passage  from  which  we  started.     After 

the  verses  already  quoted  there  is  further  by-play,  till  at  last  in 

849  ff.  we  have  this  dialogue: 

Th.  Ibo  intro  igitur.    Tr.  Mane  sis,  videamne  canes—    Th.  Agedumvide. 
Tr,  St!  abi,  canes!  St!  abin  dierecta  ?    abin  hinc  inmalam  crucem  ? 

At  etiam  restas?     St!  Abi  istinc!     Si.  Nil  pericH  est,  age*  * 

Tarn  placidast  quam  feta  quaevis.     Eire  intro  audacter  Hcet. 

Eg  ego  hinc  ad  forum.     Th.  Fecisti  commode :  bene  ambula. 

Tranio,  |  age,  canem  |  istanc  a  foribus  abducant  face, 

etsi  non  metuenda  est.     Tr.  Quin  tu  illam  aspice  ut  placide  accubat! 

nisi  molestum  vis  videri  te  atque  ignavom.     Th.  lam,^  ut  lubet. 

Sequere  me  hac  igitur. 

I  am  convinced  that  Plautus  meant  his  audience  to  think  of  the 
dog  in  our  passage  as  a  painted  dog,  somewhere  within  the  house, 
let  us  say  on  a  side  wall  of  the  entrance-passage.  Of  course  when 
the  play  was  acted  there  need  not  have  been  a  dog  of  any  kind, 
painted,  mosaic,  or  stuffed  (see  below),  within  the  house.  Decidedly 
in  favor  of  the  suggestion  that  Plautus  meant  his  audience  to  think 
of  a  painted  dog  is  the  elaborate  reference  made  in  832  ff.  to  painting. 
One  who  can  imagine  the  speed  with  which  832-56  would  be  acted  on 
the  Roman  stage  will  appreciate  how  impossible  it  would  have  been 
for  the  spectators  to  lose  the  suggestion  of  paintings  conveyed  by 

832  ff. 

If  I  am  right  in  my  theory  that  Plautus  meant  his  audience  to 
think  of  a  painted  dog,  then  the  cave  canem  incident  in  Petronius 
29  is  an  illuminating  parallel. 

In  his  note  on  Mo.  850  (1st  ed.,  1884)  Professor  Sonnenschein 
said:  ''But  perhaps  the  fun  of  this  passage  consisted  in  having  not  a 
real  dog,  but  the  figure  of  a  dog  represented  on  the  threshold,  hke 
that  in  the  house  of  the  Tragic  Poet  at  Pompeii.''  I  have  shown 
above  that  I  had  in  part  reached  the  same  conclusions  as  Professor 

he  does.  See  below,  p.  148,  the  quotation  from  Mr.  Thompson's  paper  in  the  Classical 
Review  and  the  comments  made  thereon.  But  Theopropides  may  well  enough  have 
shown  his  surprise  by  gesture  and  bearing  rather  than  by  words;  there  is  abundant 
evidence  of  the  vigorous  stage-business  of  the  Roman  theater,  e.g.,  in  the  Terentian 
miniatures  and  in  Quintilian,  to  go  no  farther  afield.  Theopropides  is  impatient 
enough  even  in  words  at  836,  839.  So  at  851  Simo's  amusement  is  to  be  depicted  by 
his  acting. 

1  Plautus  has  got  all  possible  fun  out  of  the  situation  and  at  last  (iam)  lets  Theo- 
propides wake  up.  v 


148 


Charles  Knapp 


Sonnenschein— in  so  far,  I  mean,  as  I  had  concluded  that  there  was 
no  need  to  think  of  a  real  dog.     But,  in  view  of  pidum  (832),  and 
pidam  (839),  his  suggestion  that  we  are  to  think  of  a  mosaic  dog 
seems  to  me  in  itself  far  less  natural  and  effective  than  the  view  I  have 
already  urged.     Further,  there  is  no  (other)  passage  in  Plautus  or 
Terence  in  which  there  is  reference  to  mosaic  work,  and  for  good 
reasons.     Mosaic  work  seems  not  to  have  been  introduced  into 
Greece  till  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  or  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century  B.C.:  it  was  not  known  at  Rome  till  the  time  of  Sulla.^ 
The  editor  of  the  Classical  Review,  in  a  note  to  my  paper  (XX, 
397),  pointed  out  that  in  the  Classical  Review,  IV,  381,  Mr.  E.  S. 
Thompson  had  argued  for  a  stuffed  dog.     He  wrote  thus:    ''That 
Theopropides  should  be  frightened  at  the  mosaic  figure  of  a  dog  on 
the  threshold  ....  seems  rather  far-fetched,  and  it  seems  strange 
that  no  allusion  to  so  absurd  a  mistake  should  be  made  by  the  other 
actors."     On  this  argument  see  above,  p.  146,  n.  1.     Further,  for  the 
purposes  of  this  scene  a  mosaic  or  a  painted  dog^  is  no  more  absurd 
than  a  stuffed  dog  and  about  equally  fear-inspiring.     Indeed,  ab- 
surdity, riotous  burlesque,  is  exactly  what  we  want  here,  as  in  829. 
Finally,  the  surprise  and  amusement  of  the  other  actors  are  clearly 
enough,  if  rather  subtly,  indicated  by  Plautus  (p.  146,  n.  1).^ 

One  passes  with  pleasure  from  these  rather  minute  speculations 
to  consider  other  passages  which  refer  beyond  question  to  painting- 
frescoes  within  a  house,  and  portraits  done  by  the  encaustic  process. 
In  As.  127  ff.  Argyrippus  adulescens,^  standing  outside  the  house 
of  Cleareta  lena,  from  which  he  has  just  been  ejected,  voices  his 

iSee  Mr.  Cecil  Smith  in  Smith.  Dictionary  of  Antiquities^  II,  397;  Professor 
J  R  Wheeler  in  Fowler-Wheeler,  Greek  Archaeology,  p.  538;  A.  S.  Murray  in  Ency- 
ciopaedia  Britannica\  II,  367  A;  the  article  "Mosaik,"  in  Liibker,  Reallexikon  des 
klassischen  Altertums^,  II,  681  (1914). 

2  Encolpius,  in  Petronius  28,  was  frightened  severely  enough  by  a  painted  dog! 

3  There  is  no  room  here  to  discuss  Professor  G.  D.  Kellogg's  intricate  explanation 
of  our  passage  in  his  paper,  "The  Painting  of  the  Crow  and  Two  Vultures  in  Plautus, 
Mostellaria,  832  ff.,"  in  PAPA,  XLI  (1910),  xlii-xlv,  especially  since  I  cannot  accept  his 
view. 

4 1  give  commonly  the  r61e  played  by  the  speaker,  that  the  reader  may  see  what 
kinds  of  personages  speak  the  passages  that  fall  within  the  scope  of  this  paper.  This 
sort  of  information  may  well  be  important.  Long  after  the  present  paper  had  taken 
form    I  noted  Professor  Abbott's  very  brief  discussion,  in  his  Society  and  Politics  m 


■ 

I 


References  to  Painting  in  Plautus  and  Terence      149 

feelings  against  the  lena.     The  latter  appears  at  153;    the  ensuing 
dialogue  culminates,  for  our  purposes,  at  173  ff . : 

Arg.  Male  agis  mecum.    CI  Quid  me  accusas,  si  facio  officium  meum? 
nam  neque  fietumi  usquamst  neque  pictum  neque  scriptum  in  poe- 

matis^ 
ubi  lena  bene  agat  cum  quiquam  amante,  quae  frugi  esse  volt. 

Ancient  Rome,  pp.  178-79,  in  which  he  sought  to  infer  the  intellectual  interests  and 
capacities  of  Plautus'  audiences  by  noting  what  Greek  myths  appear  in  his  plays. 
So  Professor  J.  S.  Reid,  in  his  edition  of  the  Academica,  p.  20,  uses  the  allusions  to 
philosophy  and  philosophical  reflections  in  the  fragments  of  the  Roman  drama,  tragic 
and  comic,  as  a  means  of  determining  the  measure  of  Roman  acquaintance  with 
philosophic  matters.  Strange  to  say,  however,  he  makes  no  reference  at  all  in  this 
connection  to  Plautus. 

»For  another  reference  to  statuary  in  our  poets  compare  Cap.  950-52:  "i/e. 
Interibi  ego  ex  hac  statua  verberea  volo  erogitare  meo  minore  quid  sit  factum  filio." 
For  literal  less  figurative  expressions  see  Ru.  560,  648,  673,  689  (all  four  passages  refer 
to  a  signum  Veneris  which  forms  part  of  the  stage-setting:  the  speakers  are  a  senex,  a 
servus,  a  young  mulier,  an  ancilla) ;  Ba.  954;  Ps.  1064  (in  one  of  the  last  two  passages 
a  servus  in  the  other  a  senex  refers  to  the  Palladium,  a  bookish  reference  entirely). 
Similar  to  Cap.  950-52  is  Ru.  821  ff.,  where,  after  Daemones  senex  has  stationed  two 
slaves  with  clubs  to  prevent  Labrax  leno  from  molesting  the  girls,  Labrax  cries:  "Heu 
hercle!  ne  istic  fana  mutantur  cito:  iam  hoc  Herculi  fit  Veneris  fanum  quod  fuit; 
ita  duo  destituit  signa  hie  cum  clavis  senex."     See  finally  Fragg.  31-33. 

2  Here,  since  poematis  is  set  in  contrast  to  pictum  and  fictum,  it  must  mean 
"poems,"  "literary  creations,"  as  opposed  to  the  two  forms  of  the  plastic  art.  In 
AJP  XXVI,  4-5,  however,  Professor  Sihler  seeks  to  show  that,  in  As.  746  ff.;  Cas. 
860  f-  Ps  401-5,  poeta  does  not  mean  "poet,"  but  rather  scriba,  "a  writer  in  the 
widest  sense  "  Yet  in  As.  and  Cas.  loc.  cit.,  he  also  inclines  to  interpret  poeta  as  a  kind 
of  shyster  lawyer,  "a  notary  or  composer  of  current  forms  of  civil  law."  He  does  not 
allow  however,  for  the  burlesque  tone  in  all  these  passages.  Nor  had  he  any  concep- 
tion of  the  role  played  in  Plautus  by  literature.  In  this  connection  see  my  paper, 
"References  to  Painting  and  Literature  in  Plautus  and  Terence,"  PAPA,  XLI  (1911), 

xlvii-liii.  _  ,.        ^  .»     vu 

I  feel  sure,  then,  that  in  Cas.  857-61  and  As.  746-47  poeta  means  poet,  with 
burlesque  or  mock-heroic  effect  ("maker."  the  Old  English  word  for  "poet,  or 
"composer"  would  serve  very  well  as  a  rendering;  "creator"  would  even  better  give 
the  mock-heroic  effect).  In  Cas.  860-61,  "nee  fallaciam  astutiorem  ullu'  fecit  poeta 
atque  haec  est  fabre  facta  ab  nobis,"  we  may  note  the  repetition  of  the /octo  root. 
Thinking  of  regum  rex  regalior,  applied  by  ErgasUus  parasitus  to  himself  in  Cap.  825. 
we  may  say  that,  in  the  Casina,  to  the  mind  of  Myrrina  ancilla  the  deviser  of  the 
scheme  that  so  pleases  her  is  poeta  poetarum  (to  borrow  a  form  of  expression  from 
Petronius).  "maker  of  makers."  "constructor  of  constructors."  "composer  of  com- 
posers." Even  clearer  is  Ps.  394  ff.  There  Pseudolus  servus  knows  not  yet  how  he  is 
to  trick  his  master,  yet  he  is  confident  that  he  will  succeed  in  his  purpose  (401  ff.). 
There   to  some  extent  the  etymological  force  of  poeta  is  again  in  Plautus    mind. 

Clearer  still  are  Cur.  592-93  and  Cap.  1033.  ,         xt       •     »  a  .^r.u 

It  is  really  impossible  to  divorce  Plautus'  use  of  poeta  from  Naevius  proud  appli- 
cation of  the  term  to  himself.  May  there  be  in  the  Plautine  passages  parody  o  that 
application?  According  to  the  well-known  tradition,  the  Metelli  had  ^^own  clearly 
enough  in  the  famous  "Dabunt  malum  Metelli  Naevio  poetae"  the  way  to  effective 


150 


Charles  Knapp 


Akin  to  As.  173  ff.  is  Cap.  998-1000.  The  avayv6)pi<TLS  has  been 
accomplished;  Tyndarus,  sent  to  the  quarries  by  Hegio  at  721  ff., 
has  been  recalled,  and  now,  re-entering,  speaks  thus: 

Vidi  ego  multa  saepe  picta,  quae  Accherunti  fierent^ 
cruciamenta,  verum  enim  vero  nulla  adaeque  est  Accheruns 
atque  ubi  ego  fui,  in  lapicidinis. 
For  the  kind  of  pictures  Tyndarus  had  in  mind  see  Lindsay's 
excellent  note  on  998,  in  his  editio  maior  (London,  1900),  p.  347. 

I  pass  now  to  Merc.  313  ff.  Demipho  senex  has  told  his  crony 
Lysimachus  how  desperately  in  love  he  is.     This  causes  Lysimachus 

to  exclaim: 

Si  umquam  vidistis  pidum  amatorem,  em  illic  est. 
Nam  meo  quidem  animo  vetulus,  decrepitus  senex 
tantidemst  quasi  sit  signum'^  pictum^  in  pariete. 

With  this  passage  we  may  compare  one  in  the  Epidicus.  Stratip- 
pocles  adulescens,  accompanied  by  his  slave  Epidicus,  is  waiting  for 
a  danista  to  bring  him  a  girl  he  has  bought.     Note  620  ff. : 

use  of  such  parody.  For  Plautus'  interest  in  contemporary  life  see  Classical  Philology, 
II,  13,  n.  1;  II,  14,  n.  1  (last  paragraph).  Terence,  in  his  Prologues,  uses  poeta  of 
the  literary' artist,  seriously  of  himself,  derisively  of  Luscius  Lanuvinus,  though  the 
derision  is  in  part  in  the  epithet  vetus,  "antediluvian,"  "fossilized,"  in  part  in  the  con- 
text (cf.,  e.g.,  Haul.  31  ff.).  Other  parodic  references  by  Plautus  to  contemporary 
Latin  writers  I  shall  discuss  in  a  forthcoming  paper. 

1  In  passing  I  note  that  the  subjunctive  seems  to  be  due  to  oratio  obliqua:  "tor- 
ments which,  so  they  said,  were  being  inflicted."  Similar  is  raperet  in  Men.  143,  cited 
below,  p.  152.  Lindsay's  note  on  the  mood  here  seems  to  me  futile.  The  note  consists 
merely  of  references,  without  comment,  to  Men.  143;  True.  81;  Cic.  CM.  7,  "quorum 
ego  multorum  cognovi  senectutem  sine  querella,  qui  se  et  libidinum  vinculis  laxatos 
esse  non  moleste  ferrent  nee  a  suis  despicerentur";  Or.  171,  "Legi  enim  audivique 
nonnullos,  quorum  propemodum  absolute  concluderetur  oratio."  Here  is  sad  confu- 
sion, for  in  Men.  143  the  subjunctive  is  in  oratio  obliqua;  in  Cic.  CM.  7,  Reid,  no 
mean  authority,  makes  the  subjunctive  one  of  "characteristic " :  at  any  rate  it  is  hard 
to  find  oratio  obliqua  here;  in  True.  81  the  clause  may  well  be  final,  in  spite  of  Lindsay's 
note  on  Cap.  1034,  perhaps  better  "characteristic"  (potential,  some  would  say, 
adapted  to  the  past  tense  of  the  main  verb,  "one  who  would  give  her  more,"  but  it  is 
not  oratio  obliqua,  at  least  of  the  sort  we  have  in  Cap.  998);   Cic.  Or.  171  is  like 

Cic.  CM.  7. 

»  For  signum  alone  of  works  of  art  see  Lewis  and  Short,  a.v.,  C,  p.  1698  A,  Georges 

a.v.,  £. 

3  The  epithet  pictum,  in  the  light  of  the  use  of  this  verb  elsewhere  in  Plautus, 
shows  that  in  Epid.  624  signum  means  "figure,"  "likeness"  in  general,  not  a  statue. 
So,  too,  do  verses  625-26  of  the  Epidicus.  Of  course,  if  we  must  take  signum  iis 
"statue,"  we  may  say  that  the  phrase  pictum  signum  looked  to  the  practice  of  painting 
statue3,'referred  to  not  for  its  own  sake,  but  to  pave  the  way  for  the  joke  in  625-26; 
in  that  case  the  slave  thinks  of  himself  as  a  statua  (verberea;  cf.  Cap.  951).  In  Merc. 
315  signum  pictum  plainly  refers  to  a  painting. 


References  to  Painting  in  Plautus  and  Terence      151 


Ep.  Sed  quis  haec  est  muliercula  et  ille  gravastellus  qui  venit  ? 

St.    Hie  est  danista,  haec  ilia  est  autem  quam  emi  de  praeda.     Ep. 

Haecinest  ? 
St.    Haec  est.    Estne  ita  ut  tibi  dixi?    aspecta  et  contempla,  Epidice: 

usque  ab  unguiculo  ad  capillum  summumst  festivissima. 

Estne  consimilis  quasi  quom  signum  pictum^  pulchrum  aspexeris  ? 
Ep.  E  tuis  verbis  meum  futurum  corium  pulchrum  praedicas, 

quern  Apella  atque  Zeuxis  duo  pingent  pigmentis  ulmeis.'^ 

In  the  Poenulus  the  avayvoopLcns  has  been  accomplished :  Hanno  of 
Carthage  has  recovered  his  long-lost  daughters.  At  1269  all  three 
embrace  one  another  again.  At  sight  of  this  Agorastocles  adulescens, 
lover  of  one  of  the  girls,  exclaims  (1271  ff.): 

O  Apella,  O  Zeuxis  pictor, 
cur  numero  estis  mortui,  hoc  exemplo  ut  pingeretis  ? 
nam  alios  pictores  nil  moror  huius  modi  tractare  exempla. 

''Why,  Apelles,  why,  Zeuxis,  prince  of  painters,  why  are  ye  dead 
before  the  time  ?  would  that  you  were  alive  now  that  ye  might  paint 
with  this  model  before  you,"  etc.  We  may  remember  with  profit 
that  Alexander  the  Great  would  have  none  but  Apelles  paint  his 

portrait. 

In  Stick.  247  ff.  Crocotium,  ancilla  of  Panegyris,  bids  Gelasimus 
parasitus  come  to  her  mistress  at  once.  In  comic  fashion,  however, 
they  waste  much  time  (250-65).  In  266-69  Gelasimus,  recalled  to 
the  business  in  hand,  wonders  why  Panegyris  matrona  desires  his 
presence.     At  270  he  cries: 

Sed  eccum  Pinacium  eiius  puerum.    Hoc  vide, 

satin  ut  facete  atque  ex  pictura  adstitit. 

Ne  iste  edepol  vinum  poculo  pauxillulo 

saepe  exanclavit  submerum  scitissume. 

»  See  footnote  3,  p.  150. 

«  Cf .  As.  548  ff. :  "We  are  sturdy  fellows,  we  slaves;  we  play  our  parts  manfully," 
"adversum  stimulos  ....  inductoresque  acerrumos  gnarosque  nostri  tergi." 
Lewis  and  Short  interpret  inductor  here  as  "one  who  stirs  up,"  "a  scourger,"  Georges 
by  "der  Aufzieher  von  Schljigen,"  "der  Durchpragler."  Entirely  apart  from  the 
difficulty  of  getting  this  sense  for  the  word  at  all,  I  regard  it  as  far  better  (and  easier) 
to  interpret  by  "painter,"  pictor  (in  the  derisive  spirit  inwhich  this  word  was  applied 
to  Fabius  Pictor:  cf.  Cic.  Tusc.  Disp.  i.  4),  especially  if,  as  has  been  recently  suggested, 
the  epithet  meant  "tattooer."  Pliny  H.N.  35.  102  has  "huic  picturae  quater  colorem 
induxit";  again,  in  33.  122,  he  writes  "pariete  siccato  cera  Punica  cum  oleo  liquefacta 

candens  saetis  inducatur";  finally,  in  24.  49  he  has  "umor cuti  nitorem  inducit 

faciemque  gratiorem  praestat."  See  also  inducibilis  in  Lewis  and  Short.  Naudet  had 
something  of  my  view  in  mind  when  he  wrote:  "inductores  metaphorice,  qui  inducunt 
tergum  plagis,  ut  artifices  parietem  tectorio."  j 


152 


Charles  Knapp 


We  may  render  this  as  follows:  "But  there's  Pinacium  ('Picture'), 
her  slave.  See  that!  how  comic,  how  picture-hke  his  posture  is. 
Verily  he  has  been  draining  the  wine— in  littUsh  cups  (s^c.')— many  a 
time— wine  nearly  neat,  too— most  cleverly."  As  Fennell  remarks, 
ad  loc,  this  is  sarcastic:  "so  far  from  standing  hke  a  picture  (an 
allusion  to  his  name)  Pinacium  is  more  than  half  tipsy  ....  so  that 
he  cannot  stand  steady "^ 

In  Men.  110  Menaechmus  I,  Epidamniensis,  comes  out  of  his 
house,  intending  to  carry  to  Erotium  meretrix  a  palla  which  he  has 
stolen  from  his  wife  (130)  and  to  dine  with  Erotium.  As  he  com- 
mends himself  for  the  shrewdness  with  which  he  has  overreached 
his  wife,  Peniculus  parasitus  overhears  him  and  applies  for  a  share 
of  the  plunder  (135).     At  141  ff.  the  following  dialogue  occurs: 

Men.  Vin  tu  facinus  luculentum  inspicere?     Pe.  Quis  id  coxit  coquos? 
iam  sciam,  si  quid  titubatumst,  ubi  reliquias  videro. 

Men.  Die  mi,  enumquam  tu  vidisti  tahnlam  pidam  in  panete 

ubi  aquila  Catameitum  raperet  aut  ubi  Venus  Adoneum  ? 

Pe.      Saepe.     Sed  quid  istae  picturae  ad  me  attinent  ? 

Menaechmus'  allusion  is,  to  be  sure,  rather  far-fetched;  we  have 
to  suppose  that  he  thinks  of  himself  as  the  eagle  or  as  Venus,  of  the 
cloak  as  Ganymede  or  Adonis.  But  just  in  this,  as  in  the  perversion 
of  the  name  Ganymedes  (deliberate,  to  my  mind),  lies  part  of  the  fun 
of  this  grandiloquent  utterance. 

In  the  fourth  edition  of  Brix's  commentary  to  the  Menaechmi 
(by  Max  Niemeyer,  1891),  there  was  a  very  interesting  note,  to  the 
effect  that  tabula  in  pariete  meant  "nicht  eigentlich  Wandbild, 
sondern  Nachahmung  des  Tafelbildes  in  der  Freskomalerei."  Refer- 
ence was  made  to  Helbig's  view  (Rhein.  Mus.,  XXV,  218)  that  the 
replacing  of  true  Tafelbilder  by  the  far  less  costly  frescoes  was  an 

1  With  the  name  Pinacium  cf .  mvdKU>v,  which  sometimes,  according  to  LiddeU  and 
Scott,  denotes  "a  small  or  bad  picture." 

The  name  is  thus  a  "  redende  Namen."     In  this  very  play  Plautus  shows  how  alive 
he  was  to  the  value  of  such  names,  for  at  174  ff.  he  makes  Gelasimus  explam  his  own 
name,  and  at  242  Gelasimus  again  says  "Nunc  Miccotrogus  nomine  e  vero  vocor 
Other  places  of  similar  character,  noted  by  me  years  ago,  ^^^^s  follows:    Ba.  240. 
283-85,  362.  687-88.  704;    Cap.  724-26;    Cur.  414  ff.;    Ct^.  466;    ^f^;  289,  330.  494. 
Per.  120,  506.  624-25;   Poen.  886;   Ps.  229.  585  (see  Morris   note),  6o3-55.  712.  /3b 
Ru.  657  (if  Sonnenschein's  note  is  right) ;  St.  630-31 ;  True.  77-78a.     For  a  discussion  of 
these  passages  I  may  now  refer  to  Dr.  C.  J.  Mendelsohn^ s  Studies  ^r^  tne  ^ord-^-V 
in  Plautus,  pp.  8  ff.  (Publications  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvama.  Series  in  Philology 
and  Literature,  Vol.  XII,  No.  2,  Philadelphia,  1907). 


References  to  Painting  in  Plautus  and  Terence      153 

Alexandrian  innovation,  which,  by  Plautus'  time,  ''nach  der  Antwort 
des  Peniculus  zu  schUessen  [145],  welche  die  genannten  Stoffe  als 
gelaufige   bezeichnet,  eine    auf   italischem    Bode    weit   verbreitete 
Decorationsweise   war.^i     Brix-Niemeyer   then   knew   of   but^  one 
representation  of  the  story  of  Ganymede,  on  a  Praenestine  Spiegel- 
kapsel,  ^^wahrend  die  Entfuhrung  des  Adonis  durch  Venus  bis  jetzt 
auf  erhaltenen  Kunstwerken  noch  nicht  nachgewiesen  ist."    Dumm- 
ler,  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  s.v.  '^ Adonis,"  I  (1894),  391  if.,  gave  no  hint 
of  any  picture  representing  the  rape  of  Adonis  by  Venus.     Nor  do  I 
see  in  his  account  any  hint  of  a  confusion  of  Adonis  and  Ganymede.^ 
In  the  fifth  edition  of  Brix's  commentary  (1912),  Niemeyer  reduces 
the  direct  comment  on  Men.  143  to  four  short  lines,  as  follows: 
"einfach  'Gemalde  an  der  Wand.'     Das  etwa,  wie  Helbig  {Rhein. 
Mus.,  XXV,  218)  glaubt,  ein  Freskogemalde  gemeint  ist,  liegt  nicht 
in  Ausdruck."     Now,  in  point  of  fact,  how  can  anyone  decide  whether 
such  an  expression  as  tabulam  pidam  in  pariete  refers  to  ^'Gemalde 
an  der  Wand"  or  to  frescoes ?     So  far  as  language  goes,  either  could 
be  meant.     Fortunately,  for  the  purposes  of  our  discussion,  it  matters 
not  which  Plautus  had  in  mind.     I  note,  finally,  that  in  the  last  edi- 
tion Niemeyer  completes  his  note  by  citing,  without  discussion, 
Terence  Eu7i.  584  ff.,  and  Plautus  Merc.  315,  as  giving  references  to 
paintings— a  rather  inadequate  list  of  references! 

Plautus  seems,  then,  here  merely  to  have  blundered,  whether  by 
accident  or  design.     A  deliberate  perversion  or  confusion  would  be 

sufficiently  humorous. 

In  the  Eunuchus  we  have  an  exceptionally  good  passage.  Chaerea 
adulescens,  the  supposed  eunuchus,  is  describing  to  Antipho  what 
happened  while  he  was  in  the  house  of  Thais  meretrix.  Thais  had 
gone  out  to  dine,  taking  with  her  some  ancillae  (580).    Note  now 

581-89: 

abducit  secum  ancillas;  paucae,  quae  circum  illam  essent,  manent 
noviciae  puellae.     Continuo  haec  adornant  ut  lavet.      ^ 
Adhortor  properent.     Dum  adparatur,  virgo  in  concla\a  sedet 
suspectans  tabulam  quandam  pidam:  ibi  inerat  pictura  haec,  lovem 
quo  pacto  Danaae  misisse  aiunt  quondam  in  gremium  imbrem  aureum. 

1  On  wall-paintings  and  easel-pictures  see  Mr.  Cecil  Smith  in  Smith,  Dictionary 
of  Antiquities^  II,  391. 

2  For  Venus'  love  of  Adonis  see  especially  Diimmler,  in  Pauly-Wissowa.  I,  391-9^. 


154 


Charles  Knapp 


Egomet  quoque  id  spectare  coepi,  et  quia  consimilem  luserat 
iam  olim  ille  ludum,  inpendio  magis  animus  gaudebat  mihi, 
deum  sese  in  hominem  convortisse  atque  in  alienas  tegulas 
venisse  clanculum  per  inpluvium  fucum  factum  mulieri. 

Here  the  poet  himself  gives  the  motive  for  his  reference  to  the  painting. 

I  come  now  to  a  particularly  interesting  passage,  As.  746  fP., 

especially  761  ff.^     Diabolus  adulescens  has  contracted  with  Cleareta 

lena  for  her  daughter  Philaenium  for  a  year.     He  has  dictated  to  his 

parasitus  a  formal  contract,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he  has 

put  down  leges  to  govern  the  girl's  conduct.     Cf.  756-67: 

Pa.  Alienum  |  hominem  |  intro  mittat  neminem. 
Quod  ilia  aut  amicum  |  aut  patronum  nominet, 
aut  quod  ilia  amicai  <eum>  amatorem  praedicet, 
fores  occlusae  |  omnibus  sint  nisi  tibi. 
In  foribui^  scribat  occupatam  |  esse  se. 
Aut  quod  ilia  dicat  peregre  allatam  epistulam, 
ne  epistula  quidem  uUa  sit  in  aedibus 
nee  cerata  adeo  tabula;  et  si  qua  inutilis 
pictura  sit,  eam  vendat:  ni  in  quadriduo 
abalienarit,  quo  aps  te  argent um  acceperit, 
tuos  arbitratus  sit,  comburas,  si  velis, 
ne  illi  sit  cera  ubi  facere  possit  litteras. 

Cerata  ....  tabula  in  763  need  mean  only  a  wax  tablet  for  letter- 
writing;  ne  epistula  ....  iabi^^a  would  then  mean  "  let  her  not  have 
any  letter  (received  from  anyone  else)  at  all  in  the  house  or  any  wax 
tablet  on  which  to  write  to  another.''  With  this  cf.  vs.  6  of  Naevius' 
account  of  the  flirt:  ''cum  aho  cantat,  at  tamen  alii  suo  dat  digito 
litteras."  But  in  ''et  si  qua  inutilis  ....  litteras,"  763-67,  we 
clearly  have  reference  to  a  picture  on  which  there  is  wax.  The 
reference  may  be  to  wax  laid  over  a  picture  to  preserve  it  or  to 
encaustic  painting. 

For  the  protection  of  frescoes  from  damage  by  sun  or  air  through 
the  laying  on  of  a  mixture  of  oHve-oil  and  "Punic  wax,"  see  Mr. 
Cecil  Smith,  in  Smith,  Didionanj  of  Antiquities^  I,  393  A  (second  full 
paragraph).  Pertinent,  too,  is  the  statement  in  the  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica\  VIII,  186,  and  that  by  W.  Cave  Thomas,  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica'\  IX  (1910),  367,  that  the  Greeks  used  wax  to  protect 
their  sculptures.  See  also  A.  P.  Laurie,  Greek  and  Roman  Methods  of 
Painting  (1910),  pp.  105-7. 

1  For  a  discussion  of  part  of  this  passage,  with  reference  to  the  word  poeta,  748, 
Bee  above,  p.  149,  n.  2. 


References  to  Painting  in  Plautus  and  Terence      155 

For  encaustic  painting  see  Mr.  Smith  again  in  Smith,  Dictionary 
of  Antiquities^  II,  392  ff.,  s.v.  "pictura,"  especially  the  following: 

The  Egyptians  made  use  of  preparations  of  wax  at  least  as  early  as  the 

18th  dynasty  for  preserving  paintings We  find  a  mention  of  the 

encaustic  process  in  Greece  in  the  Ode,  of  doubtful  date,  falsely  ascribed  to 
Anacreon  (6th  century  B.C.):  "Paint  me  my  mistress  with  her  soft  black 
tresses  and,  if  the  wax  can  do  it,  breathing  myrrh!"  Otherwise  encaustic 
painting  does  not  seem  to  have  been  mentioned  in  Hterature  till  the  con- 
quests of  Alexander  had  opened  closer  communication  between  the  East  and 
the  West. 

The  time  indicated  in  these  closing  words  is  precisely  the  time  of  the 
New  Attic  Comedy,  the  time,  in  a  word,  of  the  plays  of  Plautus  and 
Terence,  except  where  those  plays  reflect  Roman  rather  than  Greek 
ideas  and  conditions.^  Mr.  G.  B.  Brown,  in  the  article  "Painting," 
in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica'\  XX,  483,  also  dates  encaustic  (in 
true  paintings)  from  the  time  of  Alexander.  On  p.  490  he  reminds 
us  that  "it  is  known  from  the  evidence  of  the  Erechtheum  inscription 
that  the  encaustic  process  was  employed  for  the  painting  of  orna- 
mental patterns  on  architectural  features  of  marble  buildings " 

For  further  discussion  of  encaustic  painting,  see  A.  P.  Laurie,  Greek 
and  Roman  Methods  of  Painting,  pp.  54-68. 

In  neither  case,  whether  Diabolus  adulescens  had  reference  to  a 
protective  coating  of  wax  or  to  encaustic  painting,  could  Philaenium 
have  had  access  to  much  wax:  therein  lies  the  joke.^ 

We  are  now  ready  to  sum  up.  The  passages  cited  show  that 
to  the  Romans  of  Plautus'  day  references  to  fresco-painting  and 
portrait-painting  were  intelligible.  We  may  remember  that  before 
Plautus'  time  Q.  Fabius  had  been  called  Pictor,  though  in  a  spirit 
different  from  that  which  animates  some  of  the  passages  cited  in 
this  paper  (see  Cic.  Tusc.  i.  4).     See  above  p.  151,  n.  2. 

One  other  point  may  be  noted.  We  see  that,  aside  from  the 
references  to  portrait-painting  and  to  Apelles  and  Zeuxis,  the 
themes  of  the  paintings,  in  so  far  as  we  have  definite  themes  at 

1  For  striking  evidence  of  the  extent  to  which  the  plays  of  Plautus  and  Terence  do 
reflect,  in  some  fields  at  least,  the  times  of  Menander,  see  my  paper  on  Travel  in 
Ancient  Times  as  seen  in  Plautus  and  Terence."  Classical  Philology,  II.  ^04. 

2  Two  other  passages,  less  clear  than  those  already  treated,  may  be  cited  from 
F\kutu8-Vid.  30-36  and  Fragg.  31  ff.  (an  incomplete  passage).  In  the  latter  piace 
painting  and  sculpture  are  mentioned  together  (see  above  p.  149,  n.  1).  , 


156 


Charles  Knapp 


all,  come  from  mythology;  we  have  Venus  and  Adonis,  Jupiter 
and  Danae,  Ganymede  and  the  eagle,  and  scenes  from  the  underworld. 
The  themes  are,  in  a  word,  exactly  what  we  should  associate  with 
Greece,  particularly  from  the  time  of  Alexander.  The  themes  recur 
in  the  frescoes  of  Pompeii,  which  have  been  traced  back  in  large  part 
to  Alexandria;  see  Mau-Kelsey,  Pompeii,  p.  474,  and  the  fine  discus- 
sion, based  on  Helbig,  in  Boissier's  Rome  and  Pompeii,  as  translated 
by  Fisher,  pp.  370-419.  The  themes,  once  more,  are  those  of  certain 
departments  of  literature,  as  represented,  e.g.,  by  Ovid;  see  Boissier, 

lac,  cit} 

We  note  further  that  there  is  but  one  passage  in  Terence  bearing 
directly  and  unmistakably  upon  our  theme;  that  passage  is,  however, 
one  of  the  best  of  all  those  cited  in  this  paper.  Here  again^  Terence 
is  true  to  his  art ;  he  will  not  allow  extraneous  matter  or  matter  not 
very  clearly  connected  with  his  play  to  work  itself  into  what  he  writes. 
The  passage  in  the  Eunuchus  helps  the  play  wonderfully;  it  is  a 
sophistical  extenuation,  by  an  appeal  to  the  example  set  by  Jupiter 
himself,  of  the  wrong  done  by  Chaerea  adulescens  to  the  girl,  a  civis 

Attica.^ 

In  Plautus,  again,  the  specific  allusions  to  painting  come  from  a 
few  plays:  from  the  Asinaria  (two  passages:  174  ff.,  762  ff.),  Captivi, 
Epidicus,  Menaechrni,  Mercator,  Poenulus,  and  Stichus.  The  original 
of  the  Asinaria  was  written  by  Demophilus  {As,  Prol.  10-12);  that 
of  the  Mercator  by  Philemon  {Merc.  9-10);  that  of  the  Stichus  by 
Menander  (see  the  Didascalia). 

Some  confirmatory  evidence  can  be  got  from  a  study  of  certain 
words,  e.g.  {describo),  pingo,  depingo,  pictor,  pictura.  In  some 
passages  given  above,  notably  Poen.  1271,  pictor  means  *' painter" 
in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term;  so,  ibid.,  pingo  is  used  literally  of 
painting  as  a  fine  art.     So  again  in  As.  174;  Ep.  624,  626  (sarcastic) ; 

1  For  one  important  meaning  of  these  facts  see  my  paper,  "The  Originality  of 
Latin  Literature,"  the  Classical  Journal,  III,  306-7. 

» In  writing  "again"  I  have  in  mind  my  comment  in  Classical  Philology,  II,  5, 
note,  on  the  scrupulousness  of  Terence's  geography. 

»  As  I  remarked,  in  Classical  Philology,  II,  286,  n.  1,  end,  since  in  the  dvayvil^piffcs 
the  girl  in  the  play  usually  proves  to  be  ingenua,  in  fact  a  civis,  the  playwrights  take 
paina  to  assuie  us  that  she  has  remained  casta. 


References  to  Painting  in  Plautus  and  Terence      157 

Men.  143;  Merc.  313  (sarcastic),  315  (sarcastic);   Vid.  36.     Cf.  As, 

399-402: 

Me.  Qua  facie  voster  Saurea  est?  si  is  est,  iam  scire  potero. 
Li.    Macilentis  malis,  rufulus  aliquantum,  ventriosus, 
truculentis  oculis,  commoda  statura,  tristi  fronte. 
Me.  Non  potuit  pictor  rectius  describere  ciius  formam. 

Compare  Poen.  1111-14  (by  itself  a  less  distinctive  passage): 

Ha.  Sed  earum  nutrix  qua  sit  facie  mi  expedi. 

Mi.  Statura  hau  magna,  corpcre  aquilo.    Ha.  Ipsa  east. 

Mi.  Specie  venusta,  ore  atque  oculis  pernigris. 

Ha.  Formam  quidem  hercle  verbis  depinxti  probe.^ 

Other  examples  of  these  words  show  them  in  more  distinctly 
figurative  senses,  so  that  they  have  no  more  significance  for  our 
purposes  than  figurative  uses  of  ^' paint,"  '' portray"  would  have 
in  such  a  discussion  in  connection  with  any  English  author. 

In  Mi.  1175  ff.  Palaestrio  servus  is  instructing  Pleusicles  adules- 
cens to  pose  as  a  nauclericus  and  to  come  after  Philocomasium.     Cf. 

now  1183  ff.: 

PI.  Quid  ?    ubi  ero  exornatus  quin  tu  dicis  quid  facturu'  sim  ? 

Pa.  Hue  venito  et  matris  verbis  Philocomasium  arcessito, 
ut,  si  itura  siet  Athenas,  eat  tecum  ad  portum  cito, 
atque  ut  iubeat  ferri  in  navem  si  quid  imponi  velit: 
nisi  eat,  te  soluturum  esse  navim:  ventum  operam  dare. 

PI.  Sati'  placet  pictura. 

Mo.  261-62  (the  speakers  are  Philematium  meretrix  and  Scapha 
nutrix  anus)  does  not  help  much : 

Philem.    Turn  tu  igitur  cedo  purpurissum.    So.  Non  do.    Scita  tu  es 

quidem. 

Nova  pictura  interpolare^  vis  opus  lepidissimum. 

Nor  does  St.  354.     Still  less  important  is  Poen.  221.     In  Ps.  146 

pingo  is  used  of  embroidery  or  the  like. 

Columbia  University 

1  Cf.  Terence  Phor.  268,  "Probe  honim  facta  inprudens  depinxit  senex." 

2  See  Sonnenschein,  ad  loc.  If  interpolis  in  Mo.  274,  and  interpolare  in  Mo.  262. 
can  be  connected,  through  polio,  with  lino  (see  lino  in  Walde^),  these  two  passages 
become  of  value  for  our  purposes. 


